From JJ Abrams regarding the story he has left Star Trek...

Hey folks, Harry here. My source on this isn't UNNAMED or ANONYMOUS - It is the Director in Question. I've no stock in this story - besides the fact that I grew up with the show in question - and think that JJ is theorhetically a far better choice for the material than the regime that ran STAR TREK into the ground, that thankfully isn't involved with this project. Anyway - Latino Review is apparently POSITIVE that JJ Abrams has left STAR TREK for another project that allegedly resides at Paramount. When I called and wrote JJ to respond to the alleged confirmed anonymous rumor/fact, he emailed back...

Wassup, Mr. Knowles.
Latino Review is getting more bad intel... I am not off Trek!
Thanks for checkin' in, hope all's good with you!
JJ

SO - My recommendation is this. Blow off any rumors you're hearing about the demise of STAR TREK. Check out the fact that stages are scheduled for building and that most likely - we'll be hearing casting over the next few months... And yes, I will be running it by JJ - who I'm sure will grow to loathe my email and will junk filter me as I run bullshit rumors by him as he rolls his eyes at each.
Live Long & Prosper,
Knowles

I think this is where the confusion is coming from. For all intents and purposes Abrams is out of the directors chair and has decided to produce instead. Opening up the possibility that he is instead actually directing this other project that Latino Review is reporting on. We should know in the next week or two when Paramount and Abrams releases a statement saying in just what capacity Abrams is still involved with the project. Explains the vaguely coy e-mails Abrams is sending Harry and the apparent backtracking of Paramount heads in a recent Hollywood Reporter article stating that Abrams was never officially attached to direct but to produce instead.

...he says Latino Review can suck his TAINT.<p>...<p>I feel so dirty, but I couldn't resist. Usually I resist the urge to indulge in AICN slogans, I've even taken firsts without yelling 'FRIST!!!1!', but today I crumbled.

... but... that's true. He said from the start that he might direct or he might produce, depending on any number of things. JJ is still the guy in charge of the franchise, the leader of whatever creative team ends up making the movie. He's working with the writers. He's developing it.
<P>And that's what hasn't changed. There's no real confusion. What would make this all much funnier is if CLOVERFIELD turns out to be the STAR TREK code name.

I was under the impression that he was always attached to both write and direct the new Trek. This is a snippet from variety's announcement of Abrams on the project: "Paramount is breathing life into its "Star Trek" franchise by setting "Mission: Impossible III" helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature, aiming for a 2008 release.
Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams' producing team from "Lost," also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature."
Hence his deciding not to direct being the cause of Latino Review's confusion.
And this from Hollywood Reporter: Over at Paramount Pictures, for example, there is now a question whether J.J. Abrams will direct "Star Trek XI." The studio insists that the "Lost" creator was never officially attached to direct the film, only to produce it. However, in July, upon announcing Abrams' film production pact with Paramount, then-studio president Gail Berman said Abrams was on board to direct the next installment in the sci-fi franchise and that it would be his first project under the new feature deal.
Therefore, whoever is feeding LR their information is simply mistaking Abrams decision to not direct as a sign he is completely off the project. All of the original announcements certainly heralded the fact that Abrams was onboard to direct. Granted, the CLOVERFIELD thing could certainly be a codename for the project.

Is anybody else not really excited about this origin story?
I mean in this day of seamless CGI they should be able to put together an EPIC Star Trek film. A film that has the kind of depth,scope, and greatness as Lord of the Rings had. Are you telling me that Hollywood can't find an exciting, grand scale script based on the Star Trek universe? Especially since they decided to inject some new creative blood into the franchise.
It seems to me that Paramount is missing an opportunity. Be then again these are the guys who greenlit Insurrection and Nemesis.

After reading a another article from Variety it seems like Abrams started to backtrack from Paramount's original announcement declaring whether he would officially be in the directors chair or just producing. In that case, there shouldn't have been any confusion on Latino Reviews part.

this I just don't care enough. I too believe that there is too much potential to do something new with either New Characters or with the TNG crew. the Prequel seems like a Big Opportunity to screw up time lines and lack originality.

did Enterprise teach them nothing? TNG is too old now and having them all together is stupid - no one gets promoted? Create a whole new crew in the future, and have the Federation rebuilding after the Dominion War. Make it so the damage was so great that Starfleet has to rebuild from the ground up, the Federation is in shambles. A new Enterprise with a new crew and captain can go back to that "Final Frontier" and work on diplomatic solutions to re create the former glory of the Federation. And can kick ass when the need arises. That can give them the reboot they want without screwing up the past - like Enterprise

JJ. Abrahms is fine. Great choice. Extremely talented, and with a proven track record. The problem is, quite frankly, his "prequel" idea isn't a good one. 30-plus years of Trek Fandom is saying that no one really wants to see a young Spock and Kirk during their Academy years. Not to mention that such an idea violates Trek continuity anyway,as they met aboard the Enterprise.
What are we supposed to be seeing here? A younger."angsty" Kirk? A more emotional Spock? Great, just we need. More deconstructing of our heroes. Or the term "wussifying" if you want to be vulgar. That just doesn't sound like a good direction for STAR TREK to be taking.
And regarding about what's been said about bringing in people who have never seen STAR TREK. C'mon, who are you trying to fool? STAR TREK is as well known as STAR WARS. The chances of bringing in audience members who have never seen STAR TREK are extraordinarily low.
Do something new, instead of just painting new colours on the past.
Seriously. Someone please mothball this whole "prequel" idea. I just don't see it working out. STAR TREK needs to fly forward, not fall backwards.

MI3 was basically 3 Alias episodes strung together, which worked because it was spy shit. In fact, hed be good for a bond movie. But, I DO NOT care to was a Trek movie where Jean Luc is in it...BUT WAIT!! ITS NOT HIM!!! *pulls off fake skin mask*

It was incredibly well paced and had an urgency that I had never seen the likes of in an action film. It doesn't matter when the new Trek is set or who is in it as long as it has tension and makes you sit on the edge of your seat the way MI:III did.

Before this rumor arrived, everybody knew that this week was 'the big decision' on Paramount. IF his version were greenlighted, I'm sure that his answers would be different (Paramount wouldnt scratch JJ's image telling everyone that his version was not acceptable. The real question is who will win this pissing contest: AICN or Latino review...

1) NOWHERE is it stated in Trek canon that Kirk and Spock met on the Enterprise. They already knew each other by the time of the second pilot (the first to feature both characters). That's all we know for sure. The story of their first meeting has never been given onscreen.
2) The series "Enterprise" sucked because of the lame writing of Berman & Braga, not because it was a prequel. It was improving in quantum leaps when Manny Coto took the helm in the final season, but by then the damage was done. This current Trek project shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's a prequel and we already (sort of) know the fates of these characters. Witness Batman Begins and Casino Royale.
3) For all those saying, 'Trek needs to move forward and not back!' ... uh, technically, ALL Star Trek takes place in the future!

Prequels prequels...whats a man to do.
You know what my favorite star trek prequel is?
Master and Commander
I like the IDEA of Damon being attached..young Kirk or otherwise.Anyone who thinks Afleck could or should portray Spock has NO LOVE for anything.
TNG will turn 20 years old this September.But thats not to say its time has past.If you asked "What?"Id answer "Another TNG film!"In a heartbeat..But Paramount pretty much abandoned it, so all that is wishfull thinking.Make no mistake.When it comes to Paramounts baby Trek - they make official announcements -thats that.It WILL be a prequel.JJ will be onboard.It all comes down to track record.Other studios like WB prove time and time again they get wishy washy on moving forward with a project.Paramount doesnt ever have second thoughts or change its mind when it comes to Trek.It deffinatley never retracted an official statement.
Hate to say it like that but the checks in the mail..All we can do now is hope it doesnt bounce

I want a Pike franchise dammit. Failing that, one with Alan Ruck as the inept captain from Generations with Jeanette Goldstein CGI-d back to her 1990 prime. Or failing that, Yeoman Rand - Chained Heat. I do remain sceptical about Abrams though.

first off: a return to the TOS time line is all i want from Trek... that said, the idea of Kirk and Spock in the Academy together is terrible and not the way to go. Spock is much older than Kirk for starters. its established that Spock was SO on Enterprise while Pike was in command. it makes sense to me that Kirk was in the Academy while Spock was already an Officer. really there is no good reason to use Kirk and Spock when you could use Pike... Pike is part of the lore and easily replaceable since he was only in 2 original episodes. Khan was huge and he was only in 1. granted, Khan was the same actor... the Academy idea is just silly and hopefully its all just a rumor.

also gave us the last four seasons of The Next Generation and all of Deep Space Nine, not to mention "First Contact." Let's not forget that before the franchise kind of ran off its rails around 1998 (I'm looking at you, "Insurrection" and "Voyager"), the Berman/Braga/Moore/Behr/Taylor crew gave us some of the best sci-fi TV shows and movies since the original "Trek." Better, IMO.

It would be pretty retarded if Abrams ignored canon. I have a feeling it'll be set in the TOS years but we'll see an Enterprise redesigned from the ground up, with new costumes, and, knowing Abrams, new character flaws.
By the same token, the LAST thing this bloated franchise needs is an over-the-top fanboy exercise involving four or more captains and alternate universes.
What Star Trek needs is good storytelling, which is what defined it before VOY, ENT, and even TNG became repositories for recycled "space anomaly" stories that weren't even interesting the first time they were used.
yeah, i'm pissed at the old Trek regime too, but I have to remind myself how much I love DS9 and a lot of TNG and First Contact.

that the following casting announcement will be coming soon:
<p>Dave Coulier as Kirk, Bob Saget as Spock, John Stamos as Chekov, and Hugh Laurie as Doctor McCoy. The working title: Star Trek: Full House.</p>
<p>You read it here first.</p>

Here is an interseting website regarding CLOVERFIELD. It seems that is was an airfield that built Military Aircraft.
Given that the new film is about Star Fleet this may be the codename for StarTrek XI.
What do you think?
www.militarymuseum.org/CloverField.html

It such a shame that we will never see a DS9 feature film,out of all the incarnations of Trek, DS9 which i initally wasnt a huge fan of.
Went on to become one of the best television series ever produced.
Featuring Great Actors, terrific storylines,and the best series finale for any of the trek series.

Why does a writer/director of shitty chick shows and non-sensical serials get the helm of one of the biggest sci-fi franchises? Why are we going to the past after the failure of Enterprise? You can't replace the original actors. Period. Does this mean in 20 years we get a Next Generation remake? Jesus. How about this, dickheads? Get serious people on Trek and make something new. It's about the FUTURE for fucks sake. Quit rehashing old shit. It takes a lot of talent re-use others ideas. Idiots. BTW, Cruise didn't kill MI:3, Abrams did. It was like a fucking retarded amalgamation of Felicity and Alias but with a guy. Bravo, fuckhead. And Lost? Well, I've never seen a more accurate name for a show. Hey Jeffrey Jacob, have you written the rest of the show yet or are you still just making it up a season at a time still?

Yeah, that's the ticket. Seriously, what would this guy do to the Trek mythos? Would the planet Vulcan be simmering to explode over the course of a film trilogy? Would Spock be the heir apparent to the "throne" of Vulcan with his evil brother plotting to kill him? Would Spock have grown up in the same Midwestern town as Kirk with a lovely childless couple? Would Spock hide glaring animosity behind his cold logic over Kirk having tapped his adopted mother? Behold, the Peters and Abrams Star Trek experience! Seriously, get JMS, Manny Coto, or RDM to write the flick instead.

Is something like the Dominion War arc on DS9. That was great TV and the larger aspects of a huge war could be great on screen with better effects. And why not have some new characters that are only in the movie universe? Make a film every few years, make it huge, and avoid the current TV show burnout.